ANPR - Have Your Say
Discussion
944 Man said:
Volvolover said:
944 Man said:
Be quite, you bore.
The massive intellect has spoken. QuiteWhile you’re at it try articulating your view rather than just shouting the same thing louder. You STILL can’t explain why more ANPR would make my life as a law abiding motorist worse.
As said happy to be convinced
There’s lots of talk about holding data on us and using it wrongfully or to control us more and more etc etc in this discussion. Which is all fair and I’m not saying it’s wrong to discuss it, but my issue with the use of, and increasing reliance on ANPR, is the fact that less and less police traffic cars are seen on the road as ANPR cameras catch the uninsured, untaxed or speeding vehicles. But what ANPR doesn’t catch is the dangerous driving that’s not speeding. Overloaded lorries that would never stop in time as their brakes can’t cope with the extra load, or poorly loaded lorries and vans that sit lop-sided, bald tyres, headlights/tail-lights not working and general poor driving that can cause accidents etc. Before I get shot down by someone pointing out that it went on before ANPR was introduced, I know, but there were more police traffic cars out and about that did catch it. Now you very rarely see a police traffic car, even on the motorway as that’s left to the traffic Wombles as Clarkson called them, so this goes unnoticed and undetected, and as a few have already said, put false plates on and drive in an abhorrent manner, speeding or illegal parking etc that the cameras do pick up on and you’ll very likely never get caught as the fines will go to someone else.
Olivera said:
vonhosen said:
The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
Indeed, it's a highly regulated activity (due to safety concerns) conducted on state infrastructure. It's therefore very dissimilar to other free market activity. The privacy concerns are infinitesimally small compared to that of say internet ad-tracking or social media.Edited by Olivera on Friday 19th February 12:14
Number Plates are personally identifiable information under GDPR, so your argument is legally null and void that they are only "recording their property".
My issue isn't that they capture the data, it's how they do it. The poor excuse is that publishing ANPR locations would make the system avoidable. Currently the system is unaccountable.
Also, data is recorded on everyone for 12 months. Again that is personal information held on innocent people for far longer than is necessary. How many people wait 12months to report a missing car? Why 12 months for VED/insurance? The system should cross check against a suspect list only.
Evanivitch said:
Olivera said:
vonhosen said:
The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
Indeed, it's a highly regulated activity (due to safety concerns) conducted on state infrastructure. It's therefore very dissimilar to other free market activity. The privacy concerns are infinitesimally small compared to that of say internet ad-tracking or social media.Edited by Olivera on Friday 19th February 12:14
Number Plates are personally identifiable information under GDPR, so your argument is legally null and void that they are only "recording their property".
My issue isn't that they capture the data, it's how they do it. The poor excuse is that publishing ANPR locations would make the system avoidable. Currently the system is unaccountable.
Also, data is recorded on everyone for 12 months. Again that is personal information held on innocent people for far longer than is necessary. How many people wait 12months to report a missing car? Why 12 months for VED/insurance? The system should cross check against a suspect list only.
1) The plate is & remains the property of the state, they can withdraw it after all.
2) That the plate doesn't record who was in the vehicle & therefore the movements of individuals, the plate is instead assigned to (& can be moved from) a vehicle, it isn't assigned to the driver or passengers.
eg.
I was driving my wife's (registered to her) car yesterday. ANPR was not recording her movements & it had no idea it was me in the car. It was recording the state owned plate's movement on the state funded network.
When Joe Bloggs was driving Fed Ex's truck at work, ANPR didn't know it was him driving it, it was recording the plates movement.
When the bugger that cloned my car's plates and drove the car they put them on through a speed camera last year, they weren't recording my movements or aware of who was driving it, it was the plate's movement that was being recorded.
The ANPR didn't give them an identifiable individuals movements, it gave them a line of enquiry should they require it.
The identifiable for GDPR is the registered keeper (not the driver or passenger's movements) & that requirement in relation to VRM data exists even if ANPR didn't.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 2nd March 02:07
Volvolover said:
It’s safe to say a vehicle registration on its own is not PI you could not link this data with any PI unless combined with DVLA datasets containing registered keeper information or any other systems containing both PI and registration data such as police data.
Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.It's hilarious that people in this thread are trying to argue otherwise
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
It’s safe to say a vehicle registration on its own is not PI you could not link this data with any PI unless combined with DVLA datasets containing registered keeper information or any other systems containing both PI and registration data such as police data.
Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.It's hilarious that people in this thread are trying to argue otherwise
I can only see
[B]"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"
EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) Article 4 ('Definitions') Paragraph 1, p.33[/B]
On its own a VRN does not fit this definition
However the ICO say this
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data...
Its just not explicit IMO
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 11:26
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s f
k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over. k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. I've no problem with ANPR being used for traffic flow monitoring and enforcement of traffic offences. I do have a problem if it's used for wider purposes (including use as supporting evidence for other crimes). We are not property of the State and it's only in very limited circumstances the State is entitled to ask or know where we are and what we're doing. It is literally none of their business.
It makes sense that if automated methods can be used to detect and enforce traffic offences, we use them. If the facility is used to store information 'just in case', that's gone beyond a traffic regulation purpose and is now general surveillance. Whilst we accept CCTV in private and public hands, this is distinguished from ANPR by its general inability to track individuals and store where they've been and what they do in a joined up way (facial recognition notwithstanding, which has its own ongoing moral argument in much the same way as ANPR). We can also typically choose where we shop, whether we accept cookies, use Nectar cards and similar.
My position is that the State does not hold the right to know where I have been in my car and needing to know 'just in case' is insufficient reason for that to change.
It makes sense that if automated methods can be used to detect and enforce traffic offences, we use them. If the facility is used to store information 'just in case', that's gone beyond a traffic regulation purpose and is now general surveillance. Whilst we accept CCTV in private and public hands, this is distinguished from ANPR by its general inability to track individuals and store where they've been and what they do in a joined up way (facial recognition notwithstanding, which has its own ongoing moral argument in much the same way as ANPR). We can also typically choose where we shop, whether we accept cookies, use Nectar cards and similar.
My position is that the State does not hold the right to know where I have been in my car and needing to know 'just in case' is insufficient reason for that to change.
Volvolover said:
Out of interest can you direct to the specific quote that states that?
I can only see
[B]"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"
EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) Article 4 ('Definitions') Paragraph 1, p.33[/B]
On its own a VRN does not fit this definition
However the ICO say this
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data...
Its just not explicit IMO
There's no specific quote because anyone with any knowledge of GDPR can understand it.I can only see
[B]"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"
EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) Article 4 ('Definitions') Paragraph 1, p.33[/B]
On its own a VRN does not fit this definition
However the ICO say this
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data...
Its just not explicit IMO
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 11:26
Otherwise your IP address (computer not a person) , email address (multiple users) , home address (multiple residents) , even your NI number (also government property) would not be considered under GDPR.
The police even acknowledge this any try to justify a 12 month duration for holding data and using the specific exclusion that allows them to keep locations unpublished under law enforcement aspects permitted under GDPR.
Volvolover said:
Any data to back up this theory? Do we know how much revenue generation is underpinned by Police operated ANPR And how this has changed with the prevalance of ANPR?
Not only the Policehttps://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/global-a...
Of course, all for purely 'safety'
the internet said:
Market segment by Application, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) can be split into
Traffic Management
Law Enforcement
Electronic Toll Collection
Parking Management
Access Control
How many of the above are not revenue streams?Traffic Management
Law Enforcement
Electronic Toll Collection
Parking Management
Access Control
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6...
the internet then said:
Between 2014 and 2018, some £472m ANPR-generated fines were issued
Evanivitch said:
There's no specific quote because anyone with any knowledge of GDPR can understand it.
Otherwise your IP address (computer not a person) , email address (multiple users) , home address (multiple residents) , even your NI number (also government property) would not be considered under GDPR.
The police even acknowledge this any try to justify a 12 month duration for holding data and using the specific exclusion that allows them to keep locations unpublished under law enforcement aspects permitted under GDPR.
There's probably a good argument for VRNs being considered PII under GDPR - but your exact statement was "Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.". That is somewhat at odds with "well it's obvious, innit".Otherwise your IP address (computer not a person) , email address (multiple users) , home address (multiple residents) , even your NI number (also government property) would not be considered under GDPR.
The police even acknowledge this any try to justify a 12 month duration for holding data and using the specific exclusion that allows them to keep locations unpublished under law enforcement aspects permitted under GDPR.
Volvolover said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over. k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. I don't have much of a problem with ANPR or speed cameras for that matter, but I do with some of the ways they are (mis) used.
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over. k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. Countdown said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over. k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. It's the same as the argument against automated enforcement. People want more cops (than cameras) to be available to investigate whatever it is they personally have an issue with, but for those same cops to not be around whenever they want to blaze past someone else's house, etc.
See also: discretion - it's only valid when it goes in their favour, otherwise it's oppression (?)
deckster said:
There's probably a good argument for VRNs being considered PII under GDPR - but your exact statement was "Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.". That is somewhat at odds with "well it's obvious, innit".
Exactly and I’m entirely correct saying that vrn on its own is not pi, the ico’s own example says it has to be combined with other data...but that’s why they consider it such.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff